Amending the New York Constitution is a serious effort. The aspirations and values ​​to be embodied in the state’s legal framework must always reflect a deliberate legislative process and the conscious decisions of voters who understand the consequences that will shape the policies and policies of New Yorkers for generations.

All on the ballot this year is the Equal Rights Amendment proposal, called Proposition One. The Supreme Court’s Roe v. It is being marketed as an urgent need to further protect the state’s already broad access to abortion after Wade overturned his case and ruled that abortion laws should be determined by each state. However, the word “abortion” is not found anywhere in the text.

Opponents of the measure are equally exaggerated, but they are right about some potential excesses. The amendment would not override existing laws or create new rights in the state. But it would usher in a legal process that would give courts more authority to determine those outcomes and resolve cultural and political fights that currently lack majority support in the state Legislature. It’s part of a parallel effort by legislative leaders to reshape New York’s supreme court by stacking it with deeply liberal and activist justices who are likely to rule favorably on the case. Be sure to follow.

Our deep and frustrating partisan divides will not heal if one party seizes the judiciary to advance its social agenda.

Ambiguous Expressions

Proposal One would greatly expand the categories that deserve the highest level of protection against discrimination. The new phrase is written in bold: “No one, because of his race or color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, belief (or), religion, or gender, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health and autonomy Being exposed to all kinds of discrimination…“

The wording about abortion, in particular, is absurdly vague. In response, Ohio voters approved a ballot measure in 2023 that creates new protections for “the individual’s right to make and exercise his or her own reproductive decisions,” stating that this includes birth control, fertility treatments, miscarriage and abortion. Ohio may limit abortion only to the point of fetus viability, with exceptions related to the health and life of the mother.

Adoption of Proposition One would encourage widespread challenges to existing civil rights and discrimination laws and flood the courts with lawsuits. Conflicting decisions will destabilize many institutions and individuals trying to navigate these conflicts.

For example, the amendment opens the door to judicial activism on controversial issues such as overriding parental control over medical decisions for minors. It is likely that there will be difficulties with age restrictions for those 55 and over for some residences. Can the age of 18 as legal consent to marry or the courts’ decision to cut off the treatment of young offenders be set aside?

Proposal One is a conclusion that revolves around the will of the people to have these elections held by their elected representatives. Our opposition to change is against the process that produces it. The legislature should be the first crucible in which social change is tested. Consensus and compromise on evolving cultural norms must be created by legislators who reflect and incorporate the views of their constituents. It’s the process that keeps us honest.

ABORTION PROTECTION MISSED

As the possibility of Roe being overturned increased due to then-President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointments, steps to preserve those protections began in New York. The Reproductive Health Act of 2019 allowed abortion for up to 24 weeks and longer if necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. The next logical step was to amend the constitution to ensure that no subsequent legislature or governor could repeal that law.

Instead, the most liberal activists in the State Senate moved to make the amendment a grab bag of new civil rights, especially those related to gender. This effort was considered too over-the-top to garner support until Roe is overturned in 2022. In the chaos that followed, the Senate immediately called a special session to pass the then-dormant Equal Rights Amendment, and the House followed suit. Before any amendment can be put to a vote, it must be passed twice in consecutive two-year sessions. It was reapproved when a new session started in January 2023.

During that time, there was not a single legislative hearing in either house, testimony from legal experts about the scope of what was enacted, or recommendations on a better approach. The second vote involved only an hour of debate on the House floor.

The deliberate avoidance of good governance was followed by apparent skepticism. If abortion protections were that urgent, the Equal Rights Amendment would need to be on the ballot in 2023. Instead, it was held until this year, a presidential election year when getting a pro-abortion measure on the ballot was expected to yield more voters.

This delay was a tacit acknowledgment that the legislature had enough time to write a better amendment that would protect reproductive rights and defend same-sex marriage. Instead, voters are being duped into approving a far-reaching plan that could reshape some of the most fundamental and heartfelt policies New Yorkers have implemented.

Newsday’s editorial board recommends voting NO on Proposition One.